tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post4915576655540238843..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: STB: Three Years and CountingBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-26871452217103341902013-09-13T07:21:57.944-04:002013-09-13T07:21:57.944-04:00Hello Rageforthemachine: IMHO, the PA's burden...Hello Rageforthemachine: IMHO, the PA's burdens are to show that the Primacy of Existence isn't self-evident and the Primacy of Consciousness is coherent without resorting to magical thinking.<br /><br />{insert PA directed snarky chide}<br /><br /><br />Best/Good - Make it a Great Day.<br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-39176433253143490702013-09-12T15:25:24.049-04:002013-09-12T15:25:24.049-04:00One thing I am finding increasingly confusing and ...One thing I am finding increasingly confusing and irritating about Sye that I actually don't see addressed that often is that the obverse of his position requires Sye to be infallible. Sye is constantly asking "How do you know" and "Are you certain" because he believes lack of certainty is fatal to any claim of knowledge. But by the same respect we can can ask Sye "Is it possible for you to be wrong about ANYTHING you know." Sye believes that God is directly behind every thought he possesses guaranteeing its correctness, but even he still has to concede that he could be mistaken about ordinary things in our everyday perception of the world. Sye either has to maintain that no true Christian has ever been wrong about anything he has ever believed to be true, or admit that God either allows him to have false knowledge or what we call normally call knowledge is not direct revelation form God. If it is possible for Sye to be wrong about one thing and not know he is wrong than it is possible for him to be wrong about everything he knows because he doesn't know he is wrong about it.<br /> Of course this is another aspect of PA that has always confused me too though as it really doesn't seem to be a genuine epistemology because it doesn't seem to have a an actual theory of learning(i.e. how children form concepts about the world, the relationship between empirical learning and God's revelation etc. And of course it actually wouldn't surprise me terribly if presuppers claimed the former ala Frame's famous comment that<br /><br />"I admit that it is difficult to construe the psychology of such faith. How is it that people come to believe a Word from God which contradicts all their other normal means of knowledge?"Rageforthemachinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15757231488644145459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-35122156676594610212013-08-28T13:53:21.235-04:002013-08-28T13:53:21.235-04:00Are there Islamic or Mormon presuppositional apolo...Are there Islamic or Mormon presuppositional apologetics? If so are they sought to be used to show aspects of human cognition constitute "evidence" for the Islamic or Mormon gods? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-85107265981704661442013-08-28T07:28:31.251-04:002013-08-28T07:28:31.251-04:00So will Sye ever be able to vindicate his apologet...<i>So will Sye ever be able to vindicate his apologetic? </i><br /><br />No, but he doesn't care. <br /><br />It got him air time and he's now raking in the cash peddling his drivel to credulous theists. <br /><br />It simply doesn't matter that you showed his claims to be blatantly false, as long as he can get an opponent to show even the slightest hint of doubt he'll sit back and crow that his position is unassailable. <br /><br />Those opponents who show no such weakness will be promptly ignored with sweeping use of Romans 1 as his only excuse.freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.com